Microsoft
has filed a motion in this patent infringement case to
exclude evidence related to a survey conducted by Dr. Bruce
Isaacson. (Docket Item ("D.L") 281.) Based on the
briefing and oral argument, I will grant the motion.

Parallel
Networks accuses Microsoft of infringing, both directly and
indirectly, six independent claims and twelve dependent
claims of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 288 at 9 n.4.) Parallel
Networks' theory of indirect infringement focuses on two
accused products - (1) Microsoft's Windows Server, when
running with Internet Information Services (IIS), Application
Request Routing (ARR), and URL Rewrite, and (2) SharePoint
2013, when used with Request Manager. (D.I. 312 at 3.) In
order to support its theory of indirect infringement,
Parallel Networks hired Dr. Bruce Isaacson to conduct a
survey that sought to determine how Microsoft customers use
the accused products. (D.L 283 Ex. 1 ("Isaacson
Report").) After reviewing Dr. Isaacson's survey and
the accompanying report, Microsoft filed this motion, arguing
that the survey and all testimony that relies on the survey
should be deemed inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence
702, [2]

II.
Legal Standards

The
admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule
of Evidence 702. Under that rule, expert testimony is
admissible only if it "will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence[, ] ... is based on sufficient facts
or data[, ] ... is the product of reliable principles and
methods[, ] ... [and] reliably applie[s] the principles and
methods to the facts of the case." Fed.R.Evid. 702. The
role of the district court is to serve as a
"gatekeeper" - to protect the jury from evidence
that is unreliable, confusing, or unduly prejudicial. See
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,526 U.S. 137, 145,
147-48 (1999); Daubertv. MerrellDow Pharms., Inc.,509 U.S. 579, 589-91 (1993). In order for expert evidence to
be reliable, there must be an adequate "fit"
between the offered evidence and the subject matter at issue
in the case. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591. "Expert
testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is
not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful." Id. at
591 (quoting 3 Weinstein & Berger ¶ 702). Similarly,
expert conclusions that do not have an adequate analytical
connection to the proffered evidence are excludable. See
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner,522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)
("A court may conclude that there is simply too great an
analytical gap between the data and the opinion
proffered."); Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591
(explaining that a study of the phases of the moon may help
the trier of fact determine whether a certain night was dark,
but that it "will not assist the trier of fact in
determining whether an individual was unusually likely to
have behaved irrationally on that night").

Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Evidence 104, the burden of proof with
respect to reliability under Rule 702 lies on the party
attempting to offer the expert evidence. See Fed. R.
Evid. 702 advisory committee's note ("[T]he
admissibility of all expert testimony is governed by the
principles of Rule 104(a). Under that rule, the proponent has
the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility
requirements are met by a preponderance of the
evidence." (citing Bourjaily v. United States,483 U.S. 171 (1987))).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.